UK Bombing Syria

[Judith]

I see that the UK may start bombing Syria before Christmas.

I trust that this is the first stage of a longer term, well thought through,
plan which Cameron will be able to explain to us all, rather than a knee-jerk
reaction to the last couple of weeks.

I would hate to think that we are going to bomb the shit out of civilians and
cause "collateral damage" when we have not got a planned end in sight.

I see that civilian deaths - sorry collateral damage - were only 17,000 in
Iraq last year.

I can't remember what the long term plan for Iraq was now.

[Fredxxx]

Perhaps we should support Assad. Less will die under his authority than
under anyone else's.

[abelard]

you have a loose screw or two

he's already killed around 200,000 allegedly....

then there's are the side effects of the alleged 7 million he has
displaced


--
www.abelard.org

[John]

"Fredxxx" wrote

> Perhaps we should support Assad. Less will die under his authority than
> under anyone else's.

Perhaps we should have supported Sadam Hussein and Gadaffi - our
involvement in both of their countries have helped to spark to upsurge of
the Islamic Terrorists.

John.

[Fredxxx]

On 22/11/2015 23:32, abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:23:31 +0000, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 22/11/2015 22:18, Judith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I see that the UK may start bombing Syria before Christmas.
>>>
>>> I trust that this is the first stage of a longer term, well thought through,
>>> plan which Cameron will be able to explain to us all, rather than a knee-jerk
>>> reaction to the last couple of weeks.
>>>
>>> I would hate to think that we are going to bomb the shit out of civilians and
>>> cause "collateral damage" when we have not got a planned end in sight.
>>>
>>> I see that civilian deaths - sorry collateral damage - were only 17,000 in
>>> Iraq last year.
>>>
>>> I can't remember what the long term plan for Iraq was now.
>>
>> Perhaps we should support Assad. Less will die under his authority than
>> under anyone else's.
>
> you have a loose screw or two
>
> he's already killed around 200,000 allegedly....

Allegedly! You mean less that the allied forces killed in Iraq? Perhaps
that's because the terrorists funded and supported by the West use
civilians as convenient shields.

> then there's are the side effects of the alleged 7 million he has
> displaced

No, he hasn't displaced them. It's the West supporting and prolonging a
bloody civil war.

[Fredxxx]

I guess it depends on whether you support a civil war with humongous
lost of life and refugees moving out of the area or stability.

You sound the sort of guy that enjoys seeing loss of life and strife in
the Middle East.

[abelard]

you're babbling and ignorant as usual....i was sensible to kf you


--
www.abelard.org

[Fredxxx]

And you sound in denial.

[harry]

Drivel.
That's the total number of deaths.
Both side including "combatants".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Combatant_deaths

[harry]

Yes we should.
And did.

[pullgees]

On Sunday, 22 November 2015 23:32:09 UTC, abelard wrote:

But he's been killing longer than ISIS, give them time.

[pullgees]

We are continuously being fed anti Assad propaganda.

[Fredxxx]

Some people lap it up. Ironically its the same people who whinge about
displaced refugees coming to Europe.

[Fredxxx]

Agreed. Sometimes we have to accept that democracy just doesn't work
when people vote for their tribal or religious leaders.

It has been largely agreed that IS was born out of Iraq's invasion. The
area is a mess with Turkey silently helping IS as it opposes the Kurdish
terrorist elements. The same people the some here laughably call Freedom
Fighters.

[John]

"Fredxxx" wrote

> You sound the sort of guy that enjoys seeing loss of life and strife in
> the Middle East.

I don't follow your logic in reaching that conclusion.

I don't paticularly want to see bombing of anywhere, because I believe it's
counterproductive and pretty much ineffective in the situation where it's
being used today in Syria and Iraq. It probably kills more civilians than
combatants.

It's only being used because our politicians don't have a stomach for
putting British soldiers on the ground.

John.

[Nick]

On 22/11/2015 23:32, abelard wrote:

>> Perhaps we should support Assad. Less will die under his authority than
>> under anyone else's.
>
> you have a loose screw or two
>
> he's already killed around 200,000 allegedly....
>

You mean if only he had been a perfect leader the war would not have
happened? If only he had universally loved. If only he had convinced
these factions to love each other. If only he had employed Tony Blair as
a peace envoy.

That is one way of looking at it.

Another is what would have happened if the West had not moved to
destabilise him.

It was pointed out to you before the Iraq war that it was a dangerous
thing to do. Perhaps you still think it was a good in the long run but
if so your time scales must be decades rather than years.

So you seem to be still banging the same old drum and the results are
still the same. One begins to suspect that you like the results.

> then there's are the side effects of the alleged 7 million he has
> displaced
>
>

Quite.

[abelard]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:35:36 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 22/11/2015 23:32, abelard wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps we should support Assad. Less will die under his authority than
>>> under anyone else's.
>>
>> you have a loose screw or two
>>
>> he's already killed around 200,000 allegedly....

>You mean if only he had been a perfect leader the war would not have
>happened? If only he had universally loved. If only he had convinced
>these factions to love each other. If only he had employed Tony Blair as
>a peace envoy.
>
>That is one way of looking at it.

recovery from socialism is never cost free...

>Another is what would have happened if the West had not moved to
>destabilise him.

'the west' is not a person...

>It was pointed out to you before the Iraq war that it was a dangerous
>thing to do. Perhaps you still think it was a good in the long run but
>if so your time scales must be decades rather than years.

they are

>So you seem to be still banging the same old drum and the results are
>still the same. One begins to suspect that you like the results.
>
>> then there's are the side effects of the alleged 7 million he has
>> displaced

>Quite.

and now putin is carpet bombing them in support of a mass
murdering socialist..
while all the little socialist go quack quack quack...


--
www.abelard.org

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

harry <harry...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 November 2015 23:32:09 UTC, abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:23:31 +0000, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >On 22/11/2015 22:18, Judith wrote:

>> >> I see that the UK may start bombing Syria before Christmas.
>> >>
>> >> I trust that this is the first stage of a longer term, well thought
>> >> through, plan which Cameron will be able to explain to us all, rather
>> >> than a knee-jerk reaction to the last couple of weeks.
>> >>
>> >> I would hate to think that we are going to bomb the shit out of
>> >> civilians and cause "collateral damage" when we have not got a
>> >> planned end in sight.
>> >>
>> >> I see that civilian deaths - sorry collateral damage - were only
>> >> 17,000 in Iraq last year.
>> >>
>> >> I can't remember what the long term plan for Iraq was now.

>> >Perhaps we should support Assad. Less will die under his authority than
>> >under anyone else's.

>> you have a loose screw or two
>>
>> he's already killed around 200,000 allegedly....
>>
>> then there's are the side effects of the alleged 7 million he has

> Drivel.

I see you've met 'abelard' - the right-wing wingnut who blames 'socialists'
for everything from the extinction of the dinosaurs to the latest rainfall
over Manhattan, and everything in between.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'Every absurdity has a champion to defend it'
(Oliver Goldsmith)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Fredxxx]

On 23/11/2015 10:42, abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:35:36 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/11/2015 23:32, abelard wrote:
>>
>>>> Perhaps we should support Assad. Less will die under his authority than
>>>> under anyone else's.
>>>
>>> you have a loose screw or two
>>>
>>> he's already killed around 200,000 allegedly....
>
>> You mean if only he had been a perfect leader the war would not have
>> happened? If only he had universally loved. If only he had convinced
>> these factions to love each other. If only he had employed Tony Blair as
>> a peace envoy.
>>
>> That is one way of looking at it.
>
> recovery from socialism is never cost free...

His is more right wing that Margaret Thatcher. He sold of assets Maggie
would never have.

>> Another is what would have happened if the West had not moved to
>> destabilise him.
>
> 'the west' is not a person...

It is a massive entity.

>> It was pointed out to you before the Iraq war that it was a dangerous
>> thing to do. Perhaps you still think it was a good in the long run but
>> if so your time scales must be decades rather than years.
>
> they are

The gain simply isn't worth it. Best for the Middle East to be run by
dictators until they are mature enough to not vote for their tribal
leader and influenced by some invisible deity.

>> So you seem to be still banging the same old drum and the results are
>> still the same. One begins to suspect that you like the results.
>>
>>> then there's are the side effects of the alleged 7 million he has
>>> displaced
>
>> Quite.
>
> and now putin is carpet bombing them in support of a mass
> murdering socialist..
> while all the little socialist go quack quack quack...

No, he is stopping the Syrian terrorist gaining territory from the
legitimate Syrian government.

[Fredxxx]

On 23/11/2015 10:15, John wrote:
> "Fredxxx" wrote
>
>> You sound the sort of guy that enjoys seeing loss of life and strife in
>> the Middle East.
>
> I don't follow your logic in reaching that conclusion.

Stability ensures safety for civilians in a country. Once you have a
policy of destabilising a government people get killed.

If you support destabilising Syria, you are in indirectly support the
death of many civilians. You don't even know what your objectives are
apart from maintaining an area of death and destruction.

> I don't paticularly want to see bombing of anywhere, because I believe it's
> counterproductive and pretty much ineffective in the situation where it's
> being used today in Syria and Iraq. It probably kills more civilians than
> combatants.

Agreed, so stop the killing and support the legitimate government.

> It's only being used because our politicians don't have a stomach for
> putting British soldiers on the ground.

Like Iraq, how many civilian were killed there; and still being killed?
You sound rather blood thirsty?

[Nick]

On 23/11/2015 10:42, abelard wrote:

>> It was pointed out to you before the Iraq war that it was a dangerous
>> thing to do. Perhaps you still think it was a good in the long run but
>> if so your time scales must be decades rather than years.
>
> they are
>

This argument sounds very much like a fundamentalist religious one. Your
hatred of "socialism" is so great that any cost, including death, is
reasonable to bear in order to excise it. Much like a Jihadist believes
any cost is reasonable to promote Islam.

[abelard]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:16:57 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 23/11/2015 10:42, abelard wrote:
>
>>> It was pointed out to you before the Iraq war that it was a dangerous
>>> thing to do. Perhaps you still think it was a good in the long run but
>>> if so your time scales must be decades rather than years.
>>
>> they are
>>
>
>This argument sounds very much like a fundamentalist religious one.

how on earth did you get there?

or are you hoping to build some straw woman?

> Your
>hatred of "socialism" is so great that any cost, including death, is
>reasonable to bear in order to excise it. Much like a Jihadist believes
>any cost is reasonable to promote Islam.

don't be ridiculous...

first try to concentrate...the mass murdering socialist in
damascus is already killing on a greater scale than
isil...
and the loon in moscow is now assisting him with carpet
bombing...

it appears to be you who doesn't care how many are killed
in support of another socialist dictator..

both socialism and jihadism are killer cults...not one or the other...


--
www.abelard.org

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:

> first try to concentrate...the mass murdering socialist in
> damascus

Yes, like the 'socialist' policies of Assad .. which you've yet to outline.

Fancy that..

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'I approve of anybody who commits such acts of violence. Really, I
don't think that we can sit back and watch Arabs throwing rocks at
buses whenever they feel like it. They must understand that a bomb
thrown at a Jewish bus is going to mean a bomb thrown at an Arab
bus...'
(Meir Kahane (1932 - 1990))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Fredxxx]

On 23/11/2015 11:23, abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:16:57 +0000, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 23/11/2015 10:42, abelard wrote:
>>
>>>> It was pointed out to you before the Iraq war that it was a dangerous
>>>> thing to do. Perhaps you still think it was a good in the long run but
>>>> if so your time scales must be decades rather than years.
>>>
>>> they are
>>>
>>
>> This argument sounds very much like a fundamentalist religious one.
>
> how on earth did you get there?
>
> or are you hoping to build some straw woman?
>
>> Your
>> hatred of "socialism" is so great that any cost, including death, is
>> reasonable to bear in order to excise it. Much like a Jihadist believes
>> any cost is reasonable to promote Islam.
>

> don't be ridiculous...ies

Their obsessions have a number of similarities.

> first try to concentrate...the mass murdering socialist in
> damascus is already killing on a greater scale than
> isil...
> and the loon in moscow is now assisting him with carpet
> bombing...

Can you cite any independent source, one that doesn't take sides against
Assad?

> it appears to be you who doesn't care how many are killed
> in support of another socialist dictator..

This is a feature of a civil war. They inherently kill lots of civilian.
We need to take a side, either Assad or IS, what would you choose?

> both socialism and jihadism are killer cults...not one or the other...

So is right wing fanaticism.

[Sid.]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sbf45blcffmkme382...@4ax.com...

>
>
> I see that the UK may start bombing Syria before Christmas.

They will have to hurry or they will miss the fun......................


In an unprecedented move, Russia has sent ground-troops into the Syrian
battlefield in support of Bashar Assad as the dictator struggles to maintain
his power in the continuous four-year-long civil war, according to a report
by Kuwaiti daily al-Rai.

The report, which has not been substantiated by other sources, claims
Russian military forces have been providing cover for T-90 tanks along with
military air support which have attacked multiple strategic targets held by
rebel forces in Idlib and Latakia.

In September, multiple US officials claimed that Russia had positioned about
a half dozen tanks at a Syrian airfield at the center of a military buildup.

One US official said seven Russian T-90 tanks were observed at the airfield
near Latakia, a stronghold of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The Kuwaiti report adds that Russian forces have already taken over multiple
strategic positions and have forced numerous rebel battalions to retreat.
The report did not disclose whether there were Russian army casualties.

Over the last three months, Russia has steadily increased its participation
in the Syrian domestic conflict, launching airstrikes from its bases in
western Syria

[harry]

True.
The Russians have it right.

[Fredxxx]

They want stability in the area. Their borders adjoin various Muslim
countries and the last thing they want is any spill over onto their soil.

The USA, fortunately for them, don't have any borders with Islamists.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Sunday, 22 November 2015 23:34:57 UTC, John wrote:

Blair did - didn't he?

[Fredxxx]

On 23/11/2015 21:58, Roberta wrote:

> On 11:01 23 Nov 2015, Fredxxx wrote:
>
>> On 23/11/2015 10:15, John wrote:
>>> "Fredxxx" wrote
>>>
>>>> You sound the sort of guy that enjoys seeing loss of life and strife
>>>> in the Middle East.
>>>
>>> I don't follow your logic in reaching that conclusion.
>>
>> Stability ensures safety for civilians in a country. Once you have a
>> policy of destabilising a government people get killed.
>>
>> If you support destabilising Syria, you are in indirectly support the
>> death of many civilians. You don't even know what your objectives are
>> apart from maintaining an area of death and destruction.
>

> Many people seem to assume that the UK has some sort of imperative to
> intervene in Syria. Perhaps it's because of what the Syrian regime has
> done to its own people.
>
> However, aren't there equally offensive regimes that we just leave
> alone? Such as North Korea and probably others too.
>
> We seem to be picking on Syria to some extent.

It's down to the way cowards only give anyone a good kicking if they
don't get kicked back.

Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly dislike Assad. However he's the lesser
evil of any alternative.

[Fredxxx]

I wonder how many super injunctions Bliar has surrounding the Chilcot
report?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:18:13 -0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> I see that the UK may start bombing Syria before Christmas.
>
> I trust that this is the first stage of a longer term, well thought through,
> plan which Cameron will be able to explain to us all, rather than a knee-jerk
> reaction to the last couple of weeks.
>
> I would hate to think that we are going to bomb the shit out of civilians and
> cause "collateral damage" when we have not got a planned end in sight.
>
> I see that civilian deaths - sorry collateral damage - were only 17,000 in
> Iraq last year.
>
> I can't remember what the long term plan for Iraq was now.

They are the enemy. Bomb them all. Why do you have a problem with this? Civilians are not innocent, they are the enemy too.

--
"With god all things are possible" - yes: war, famine, pestilence, suffering, ..... -- Dave Moorman 2013

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Traitor.

--
Experience is what you got by not having it when you need it.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:51:42 -0000, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 22/11/2015 23:34, John wrote:
>> "Fredxxx" wrote

>>
>>> Perhaps we should support Assad. Less will die under his authority than
>>> under anyone else's.
>>

>> Perhaps we should have supported Sadam Hussein and Gadaffi - our
>> involvement in both of their countries have helped to spark to upsurge of
>> the Islamic Terrorists.
>

> I guess it depends on whether you support a civil war with humongous
> lost of life and refugees moving out of the area or stability.

>
> You sound the sort of guy that enjoys seeing loss of life and strife in
> the Middle East.

Wipe them all out then we have more land to use for the civilised Westerners.

--
California lawmakers are now proposing an amendment that would allow 14 year olds a quarter vote and 16 year olds a half a vote in all state elections.
How stupid is this? Don't they have enough trouble counting WHOLE votes? How are they going to figure out fractions?!

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:15:08 -0000, John <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>
> "Fredxxx" wrote
>
>> You sound the sort of guy that enjoys seeing loss of life and strife in
>> the Middle East.
>
> I don't follow your logic in reaching that conclusion.
>
> I don't paticularly want to see bombing of anywhere, because I believe it's
> counterproductive and pretty much ineffective in the situation where it's
> being used today in Syria and Iraq. It probably kills more civilians than
> combatants.

WTF is the point in just killing the soldiers? To weaken an enemy, you must kill everyone there.

[Norman Wells]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.x8krn...@red.lan...

> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:18:13 -0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I see that the UK may start bombing Syria before Christmas.
>>
>> I trust that this is the first stage of a longer term, well thought through,
>> plan which Cameron will be able to explain to us all, rather than a knee-jerk
>> reaction to the last couple of weeks.
>>
>> I would hate to think that we are going to bomb the shit out of civilians and
>> cause "collateral damage" when we have not got a planned end in sight.
>>
>> I see that civilian deaths - sorry collateral damage - were only 17,000 in
>> Iraq last year.
>>
>> I can't remember what the long term plan for Iraq was now.
>
> They are the enemy. Bomb them all. Why do you have a problem with this?
> Civilians are not innocent, they are the enemy too.

But you seem averse to bombing your neighbours over matters concerning your garden
fence. Why the difference?

[Judith]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 11:01:46 +0000, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Like Iraq, how many civilian were killed there; and still being killed?
>You sound rather blood thirsty?

Oh it was obviously well worth it. - just like bombing the shit out of Syria
will be - just a little collateral damage.

17,049 civilians have been recorded killed in Iraq during 2014 (up to Dec 30).
This is roughly double the number recorded in 2013 (9,743), which in turn was
roughly double the number in 2012 (4,622). These numbers do not include
combatant deaths, which even by the most cautious tallies have also seen a
sharp rise in 2014.


I want to know what is the actual overall plan.
Oh I know - we will bomb the shit out of them. Collateral damage? Tough shit.

And then .......

[Judith]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:58:16 GMT, Roberta <no_spa...@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 11:01 23 Nov 2015, Fredxxx wrote:
>

>> On 23/11/2015 10:15, John wrote:
>>> "Fredxxx" wrote
>>>
>>>> You sound the sort of guy that enjoys seeing loss of life and strife
>>>> in the Middle East.
>>>
>>> I don't follow your logic in reaching that conclusion.
>>
>> Stability ensures safety for civilians in a country. Once you have a
>> policy of destabilising a government people get killed.
>>
>> If you support destabilising Syria, you are in indirectly support the
>> death of many civilians. You don't even know what your objectives are
>> apart from maintaining an area of death and destruction.
>

>Many people seem to assume that the UK has some sort of imperative to
>intervene in Syria. Perhaps it's because of what the Syrian regime has
>done to its own people.
>
>However, aren't there equally offensive regimes that we just leave
>alone? Such as North Korea and probably others too.
>
>We seem to be picking on Syria to some extent.

Cameron is trying to prove he is a "world leader".

As an aside: I shouldn't think the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey will
improve his chances of the Commons approving RAF airstrikes.

[abelard]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:23:47 GMT, Roberta <no_spa...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>By the way, I never understood why the Americans thought of Blair as a
>great speaker. Much as I like Blair, I always felt he was hesitant and
>gave the appearance of being shifty during his speaches to say nothing
>of his rather phoney-looking smile.
>
>I don't know what the Americans saw in Blair. An Englsh accent can only
>impress so much.

they've elected o'barmy...he is phoney to the core...

or perhaps you could say he's out to lunch

>> As an aside: I shouldn't think the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey
>> will improve his chances of the Commons approving RAF airstrikes.
>

>Hadn't heard that. Must be breaking news. Will look into it.
>
>Turkey is very fiercly territorial. And the Russian always like to test
>the limits.


--
www.abelard.org

[Ophelia]

"Roberta" <no_spa...@invalid.com> wrote in message

> Turkey is very fiercly territorial. And the Russian always like to test
> the limits.

It does indeed! It seems we have a submarine in the waters off Scotland
atm. They really do like to push it and this time in Turkey they came
unstuck.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Ophelia]

"Roberta" <no_spa...@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:XnsA55C88BB...@130.133.4.11...

> On 12:44 24 Nov 2015, Ophelia wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Roberta" <no_spa...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Turkey is very fiercly territorial. And the Russian always like to test
>>> the limits.
>>
>> It does indeed! It seems we have a submarine in the waters off Scotland
>> atm. They really do like to push it and this time in Turkey they came
>> unstuck.
>>
>

> What a volatile combination Turkey and Russia make. Military action
> taking place so close to each another was an accident just waiting to
> happen.
>
> Unless the Russian plane was in hot pursuit or escaping a dangerous
> skirmish there's little good reason for it to be flying over Turkish
> territory.
>
> On the other hand, shooting it down seems a bit of severe reaction.

I see Russia is now saying the planes were downed by ground fire ... Seems
they don't want to get into a stushie with Turkey given the other stuff that
is happening over Daesh.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Because they are the same species and on my side.

--
Bad or missing mouse. Spank the cat [Y/N]?

[abelard]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:26:28 GMT, Roberta <no_spa...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 12:44 24 Nov 2015, Ophelia wrote:

>> "Roberta" <no_spa...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Turkey is very fiercly territorial. And the Russian always like to test
>>> the limits.
>>
>> It does indeed! It seems we have a submarine in the waters off Scotland
>> atm. They really do like to push it and this time in Turkey they came
>> unstuck.
>>
>

>What a volatile combination Turkey and Russia make. Military action
>taking place so close to each another was an accident just waiting to
>happen.
>
>Unless the Russian plane was in hot pursuit or escaping a dangerous
>skirmish there's little good reason for it to be flying over Turkish
>territory.
>
>On the other hand, shooting it down seems a bit of severe reaction.

he just keeps pushing his luck...

he's trying to see just what he can get away with


--
www.abelard.org

[Norman Wells]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x8lyj...@red.lan...

No, they're on the other side. That's what fences are for.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

It's only a little side. It's hardly a country border is it?

--
My car is a hybrid. It burns petrol AND oil.

[Norman Rowing]

On 24/11/2015 13:26, Roberta wrote:

> Unless the Russian plane was in hot pursuit or escaping a dangerous
> skirmish there's little good reason for it to be flying over Turkish
> territory.
>

It wasn't over Turkish territory

[pullgees]

Oh you saw it?

[Norman Rowing]

As you did

[pullgees]

The Russians were not threatening Turkey, it was a gross overreaction. But of course Turkey does not approve of Russian intervention in Syria. Turkey has been funding IS and it is part the opposition alliance to Assad which includes America the UK, France and Saudi

[pullgees]

You claim to know, I don't. Please cite.

[Norman Rowing]

There comes a point when you have to agree with one side. Russia has no
reason to lie

[Norman Wells]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x8l1l...@red.lan...

Oh, I see. It's not a matter of principle then.

[harry]

> Another is what would have happened if the West had not moved to
> destabilise him.
>
> It was pointed out to you before the Iraq war that it was a dangerous
> thing to do. Perhaps you still think it was a good in the long run but
> if so your time scales must be decades rather than years.
>
> So you seem to be still banging the same old drum and the results are
> still the same. One begins to suspect that you like the results.

>
> > then there's are the side effects of the alleged 7 million he has

> > displaced
> >
> >
>
> Quite.

Assad, Gadaffiand Hussien were all perfect leaders for the places they were leading.

[Chris X]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:36:26 -0000, "Ophelia" <OphEl...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>
>
>"Roberta" <no_spa...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:XnsA55C88BB...@130.133.4.11...
>> On 12:44 24 Nov 2015, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Roberta" <no_spa...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Turkey is very fiercly territorial. And the Russian always like to test
>>>> the limits.
>>>
>>> It does indeed! It seems we have a submarine in the waters off Scotland
>>> atm. They really do like to push it and this time in Turkey they came
>>> unstuck.
>>>
>>
>> What a volatile combination Turkey and Russia make. Military action
>> taking place so close to each another was an accident just waiting to
>> happen.
>>
>> Unless the Russian plane was in hot pursuit or escaping a dangerous
>> skirmish there's little good reason for it to be flying over Turkish
>> territory.
>>
>> On the other hand, shooting it down seems a bit of severe reaction.
>
>I see Russia is now saying the planes were downed by ground fire ... Seems
>they don't want to get into a stushie with Turkey given the other stuff that
>is happening over Daesh.

Anyone who calls ISIS "Daesh" has an agenda and should be designated
part of the problem, not the solution.

Fucking tory bitch.

[Fredxxx]

On 24/11/2015 10:16, Judith wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:58:16 GMT, Roberta <no_spa...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11:01 23 Nov 2015, Fredxxx wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/11/2015 10:15, John wrote:
>>>> "Fredxxx" wrote
>>>>
>>>>> You sound the sort of guy that enjoys seeing loss of life and strife
>>>>> in the Middle East.
>>>>
>>>> I don't follow your logic in reaching that conclusion.
>>>
>>> Stability ensures safety for civilians in a country. Once you have a
>>> policy of destabilising a government people get killed.
>>>
>>> If you support destabilising Syria, you are in indirectly support the
>>> death of many civilians. You don't even know what your objectives are
>>> apart from maintaining an area of death and destruction.
>>
>> Many people seem to assume that the UK has some sort of imperative to
>> intervene in Syria. Perhaps it's because of what the Syrian regime has
>> done to its own people.
>>
>> However, aren't there equally offensive regimes that we just leave
>> alone? Such as North Korea and probably others too.
>>
>> We seem to be picking on Syria to some extent.
>
>
> Cameron is trying to prove he is a "world leader".

Perhaps he's trying to emulate Bliar?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

It's a different matter entirely. I am not an enemy of my neighbour.

--
It's not the dress that makes your bum look big honey, it's the 30 cakes you ate yesterday.

[Norman Wells]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x8mda...@red.lan...

Of course you are. That's why they're not living in your house.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

You think there is only "enemy" and "lover" and nothing inbetween?>

--
A penny saved is ridiculous.

[abelard]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:37:44 -0000, "Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:59:47 -0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>> Of course you are. That's why they're not living in your house.
>
>You think there is only "enemy" and "lover" and nothing inbetween?>

it would be much cheaper and more efficient for all of you
if you knocked the wall through and worked together...
unless they are slobs

nothing to do with "enemy" and "lover"

answer the question instead of swerving like a girlyman...


--
www.abelard.org

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Compared to her, I'm the slob.

--
Did you hear about the new instant lottery game in India?
You scratch the ticket and if the dot matches the one on your forehead, you win a convenience store in the US.